<quoted text>One of the best examples of a republican controlled state is this piece of crap state that I am temporarily in called oklahoma. This republican bit-h governor is trying hard not to accept federal money so many that need it can have healthcare. republicans would rather spend our tax dollars every where but here in America trying to control the world, to hell with their fellow Americans. Bur atleast we won't be abused,raped and robbed for the next 4 years and even then they will probaly lose the whitehouse again.

Maybe not but we will continue to get blown up by Obama's Muslim cohorts. Not a combatant my ass!

It's sure enjoyable pestering these dumchit republicans. It's going to be for almost 4 more years. How many are going to lose it,I mean blow a fuse, throw a rod, blow their mental head gaskets! Just thrills me to no end seeing synergy and company darn near have a nervous breakdown right here on this forum. No, I'll stick around and watch these trainwreaks for a long time. I had to put up with their rotten bush for 8 painful years now they have to go threw what many of us had to.

WASHINGTON (AP)- The economy's relentless growth means federal surpluses will be far larger than estimated, leaving plenty of room for George W. Bush's proposed tax cut, aides to the presidential contender said Tuesday.

Bush's new estimates came amid cries from supporters of his Democratic rival, Vice President Al Gore, that the Republican's plan would be so big that it would force deep spending cuts and a return to budget deficits. Bush's plan ''still doesn't add up,'' a Gore adviser asserted.

Stop it with the facts !!!

First we have Right Wing Wacko Ronnie Ray-Gun using Right Wing economic policies and Tripling the national debt - and the Middle Class gets screwed.

Then we have Right Wing Wacko and Corporate Tool Bush #2 using Right Wing Wacko economic policies to turn a budget surplus into a $1.4 Trillion Dollar deficit, to double the national debt, and screw the Middle Class.

Next then you know - you'll be claiming anyone with an IQ higher than a fire hydrant would understand Right Wing Whacko economic policies are ........ well...... Wacko.

It is incomprehensible that somebody could build their net worth, through home ownership, and then have the powers that be destroy that home through government permitted error, and then deny responsiblity or accountablity and deny due process, basic liberty, or legal representation. There were just too many, so you own it free of debt, the government through fraud permits harm, then through added harm, says none of that matters making it very difficult to restart.While they hold the citizen hostage, counting on government tyranny to do nothing, making it very difficult to spend resources to restart. So in essence you have the government taking people into poverty, adding harm, so they can't fight out of the poverty, then wiping them out when they try to protect liberty, that they can't reboot. What becomes the result? The top creating the jobs, not the middle or working class, the antithesis of what this country was founded upon.Then in the event you find an innovator from the middle or working class, you exploit the efforts through hostage taking, I realize it is called something else, what I don't know, but something, and do nothing until they are wiped out, and have no choice but to be held exploited by the top. And what did the person do? Try to build worth through buying and paying off a home, what the core values in America say to do.And your response back is get a job, reinforcing exactly what is the antithesis of what this country was founded upon, as it was founded upon create a job, and build up.Our founding fathers were founding...How about stating that all citizens have rights to liberty, due process and the constitutional rights to be free of harm when buying a new home in the USA as the start, and when they are harmed, they are compensated for that harm? Then you have the basics back so the innovator can reboot, and create jobs.

<quoted text>Leviticus 18:22 Just to clear up your "expert" interpretation.

You are letting your hatred cloud your interpretation. How do you KNOW the rich and powerful DON'T help others? How do you KNOW they don't help the sick and downtrodden? YOU DON"T. You are simpley so FULL of HATE and ENVY(Now, what is it that the Bible says about envy?), that you are USING the Bible to make yourself feel better. Read my previous post to you. It "might" encourage you to think for yourself for a change.

Wow - Right Wing Planet has its own Bible !!!

You see, my old King James version has Leviticus in the Old Testament - long, long, long, long, long, before Jesus was born.

But there on Right Wing Planet, Jesus came to us twice - once as an old dude named Leviticus - then later as Jesus.

I always thought Jesus came to Earth once. Who knew ?

Here's some other interesting abominations and comments from 'Ol Leviticus and his merry band of Old Testament kill joys.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it createsa pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned inExodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is inher period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male andfemale, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but notCanadians. Can you clarify?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood project?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is anabomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the sameas a you-know-what.

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if Ihave a defect in my sight. I wear reading. glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggleroom here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hairaround their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden byLev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makesme unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting twodifferent crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearinggarments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyesterblend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole towntogether to stone them?(Lev.24:10-16)

Couldn't we just burn them todeath at a private family affair like we do with people who sleepwith their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14)

Gotta love folks who pick and chose which abominations from the Old Testament are important.

As for me- I'm safe - no need to stone me to death - my hair falls out so fast Leviticus' followers won't have to kill me.

<quoted text>Uhmmm, apparently Bush the Lesser was also calling it a surplus...http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/e98/e1686...The economy's relentless growth means federal surpluses will be far larger than estimated, leaving plenty of room for George W. Bush's proposed tax cut, aides to the presidential contender said Tuesday

You know what's funny about that comment? In that very same article from 2000 Gore said "The math still doesn't add up!".

Turns out that it didn't add up.

But Republicans still keep on wanting to follow that path to proven destruction. Idiots.

<quoted text>Tell us about the last sunshine spill washing down a subdivision street in Anywhere America.http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/22/news/economy/...There are more solar energy workers in Texas than there are ranchers. In California, they outnumber actors, and nationwide, America has more solar workers than coal miners.

Nationwide, the solar industry says it employs 119,000 people.

Here's some coal dust in your eyes.

"There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S."

"This total does not include indirect employment - workers who are not directly employed in the coal industry, but whose jobs are supported by that industry, which ranges in the low hundreds of thousands."

And here's some fossil fuel to burn you up.

"Even with a breakneck pace of growth, the clean-energy industry would not be creating as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry: It simply is not big enough at the moment to draw in hundreds of thousands of new workers per year. The Pew study, for instance, estimated that 770,000 people worked in green energy. That compares with more than nine million jobs for oil and gas, and many more for coal and other industries."

"Solar supporters are going on the offensive about their field's jobs angle. The industry receives considerable government support, and talking about its employment advantages broadens the conversation beyond global warming."

Considerable gubment support = tax dollars wasted.If it was self supporting, it could work. Being just another welfare agency, it's a lousy proposition.

<quoted text>More of your pomposity. Why write a long BORING diatribe when she can sum up her point in a few sentences. I am pretty sure that more people are reading her posts as opposed to your long drawn out repetitive drivel. Why don't you take all that crap, sum it up and post it? I, along with others(I think) would read it. At this point, I read the first couple of sentencs and the last couple of sentences. It's just the same old name calling and Obamabot thinking, so I don't need to read it. Sum it up. You should have learned to do that in English 101?

I'm also pretty sure more people are watching Fox Noise than MIT's online seminars.

At least on Right Wing Planet.

Don't worry, we also understand that Right Winger' attention span and reading comprehension issues make it difficult to read more than a single short sentence in one setting.

Thankfully they've made comic book versions of the classics so you can read the comic book version of Robinson Crusoe, it has lots of pictures, and maybe some day you'll read a real "Chapter Book".

<quoted text>Wow, that's really a compelling case, except that CRA isn't what you think it is, and there's that little problem of Fannie and Freddie dealing with conforming loans. But hey, your story sounds really good.

...But what the firm did, and the role it and larger rival Fannie Mae played in the housing crisis of the last decade, remain a source of confusion for many Americans.

What do Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae do? The two of them support the housing industry by providing billions in financing to the mortgage market.

They buy mortgage loans from lenders that conformed to their guidelines, typically safer loans with a large down payment, good credit scores for the borrowers and verification of their income.

Did the two firms create the housing bubble that caused the financial meltdown? Not really.

The two firms were major players in the mortgage market, and so the rising home values were at least partly funded by their flow of money.

But the bubble really inflated when Wall Street started buying riskier loans made to borrowers who didn't qualify for a Fannie or Freddie conforming loan. Those loans carried higher interest rates, with relatively little risk for investors while home prices were going up.

Experts say it was the growth of those riskier loans that caused home prices to rise and the bubble to inflate.

"When you bring in 5 million marginal buyers who under normal circumstances would not qualify for a mortgage, that's what ends up driving home prices," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ.

"If Freddie and Fannie never existed, we would have had the same problem," he said.What caused problems for Fannie and Freddie? By the middle of the last decade, Freddie and Fannie had lost their dominant position in the home loan market, as the riskier loans became a larger share of the mortgage market.

So they adjusted their underwriting standards in order to participate in the riskier lending as well.

Even though the riskier loans were a minority of the loans each purchased, because each was so huge, they ended up with a large volume of those loans.

They also were relatively late to the game. That meant they got into riskier loans right before the decline in home prices -- which began in 2006 -- led to a spike in foreclosures. After that, home buyers started to default on loans that were safer, adding to Freddie and Fannie's losses.

"What killed Fannie and Freddie is the housing market went to hell and they were 100% exposed to housing," said Jaret Seiberg, analyst with Guggenheim Washington Research Group....

Don't you understand that somehow, someway, in some manner, we have to pretend that unregulated capitalist don't do what they are supposed to do - that is make the biggest profit possible at anyone and everyone else's expense.

Nope - we have to pretend that isn't their job.

So we have to blame someone, anyone, other than those who nearly destroyed the economy of the entire industrialized world.

Hey, if we can pretend it was smart to invade Iraq because the Saudis blew up the World Trade Center, anything is possible.

<quoted text>Oh no don't quit your job, I gets lotsa tax dollars. That 6.2% that comes out of your check, if you work, pays for,Housing Assistance, Social security money on time every third of the month, food stamps, only 1.15 for any prescription and last but not least any doctor I choose to go to with absolutely no co-pays. Keep working like a dog cause we expect another raise come January.

Don't have a paycheck. Live on investment return.Forget your ss increase come next year, Obama is cutting your pay.

<quoted text>Wow - Right Wing Planet has its own Bible !!!You see, my old King James version has Leviticus in the Old Testament - long, long, long, long, long, before Jesus was born.But there on Right Wing Planet, Jesus came to us twice - once as an old dude named Leviticus - then later as Jesus.I always thought Jesus came to Earth once. Who knew ?Here's some other interesting abominations and comments from 'Ol Leviticus and his merry band of Old Testament kill joys.a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it createsa pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9).The problem is my neighbors bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned inExodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her?c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is inher period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male andfemale, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but notCanadians. Can you clarify?e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood project?f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is anabomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination thanhomosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the sameas a you-know-what.g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if Ihave a defect in my sight. I wear reading. glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggleroom here?h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hairaround their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden byLev.19:27.How should they die?i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makesme unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting twodifferent crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearinggarments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyesterblend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole towntogether to stone them?(Lev.24:10-16)Couldn't we just burn them todeath at a private family affair like we do with people who sleepwith their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14)Gotta love folks who pick and chose which abominations from the Old Testament are important.As for me- I'm safe - no need to stone me to death - my hair falls out so fast Leviticus' followers won't have to kill me.

"President Barack Obama demands more stimulus spending to avoid the "fiscal cliff." Obama increased the national debt $6 trillion to $16 trillion. Yet the Democrats''cure for what ails ya' is even more spending. Obama demands around $75 billion in new spending to stimulate the economy in 2013.

"Keynesian Economics" is the insane belief that the economy can be stimulated by government spending. It provides the excuse to depart from common sense that allows politicians to ignore the alarm bells. It is ludicrous mainly because our government doesn't have any money to spend.

If the government had a surplus saved up, spending actual money might give our economy a short-term sugar high (with dubious long-term results). But our Federal and state governments must first suck money out of the economy by borrowing it.

History has repeatedly proven that this is nonsense. Yet Democrats will not let go of the Keynesian Myth. The government is the center of society, America's modern Democrats want to believe. So they cannot shake the dogma that our entire economy depends upon government spending.

The New Deal was the largest real-world test of the Keynesian Myth in recent history. Franklin Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau confessed that the "New Deal" was a failure in sworn testimony before Congress on May 9, 1939.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.... And an enormous debt to boot!"

<quoted text>Wow, that's really a compelling case, except that CRA isn't what you think it is, and there's that little problem of Fannie and Freddie dealing with conforming loans. But hey, your story sounds really good.

And so does you story beginning in the middleof the story. Let's go back to another decade.

The story is laid out in detail in The Great American Bank Robbery by Paul Sperry and The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. Here it is in a nutshell.

Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.

Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.

Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.

But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.

Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.

Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.

With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.

Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.

In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.

Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.

The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.

When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate.(A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations!(Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)

Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.

The bottom line is that Democrats were the primary architects and the driving force behind the irresponsible banking practices that led to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis, and the recession that resulted. But they managed to successfully pin the public blame on Republicans, and Barack Obama was elected as a result. If the Democrats are not finally held accountable in the next election, they will continue to wreck the US economy until it is unrecognizable as a free market, and the days of American prosperity will be over.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.